WASHINGTON, DC — There were audible gasps in the Supreme Court’s lawyer’s lounge, where audio of the oral argument is pumped in for members of the Supreme Court bar, when Justice Antonin Scalia offered his assessment of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. He called it a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”

The comment came as part of a larger riff on a comment Scalia made the last time the landmark voting law was before the justices. Noting the fact that the Voting Rights Act reauthorization passed 98-0 when it was before the Senate in 2006, Scalia claimed four years ago that this unopposed vote actually undermines the law: “The Israeli supreme court, the Sanhedrin, used to have a rule that if the death penalty was pronounced unanimously, it was invalid, because there must be something wrong there.”

That was an unusual comment when it was made, but Scalia’s expansion on it today raises concerns that his suspicion of the Act is rooted much more in racial resentment than in a general distrust of unanimous votes. Scalia noted when the Voting Rights Act was first enacted in 1965, it passed over 19 dissenters. In subsequent reauthorizations, the number of dissenters diminished, until it passed the Senate without dissent seven years ago. Scalia’s comments suggested that this occurred, not because of a growing national consensus that racial disenfranchisement is unacceptable, but because lawmakers are too afraid to be tarred as racists. His inflammatory claim that the Voting Rights Act is a “perpetuation of racial entitlement” came close to the end of a long statement on why he found a landmark law preventing race discrimination in voting to be suspicious.

3. An article on Talking Points Memo quotes Scalia as saying:

I don’t think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act,” Scalia said. “This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They’re going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful.

Excuse me?! Since when is it the job of the Supreme Court to protect legislators -- in advance no less -- against the political consequences of taking an unpopular vote?

4. Justice Scalia, a moment of your time please?

Show me a single instance in the last 4 years in which the Republicans were afraid of being deemed racist? They are racist, everyone who knows anything knows it and they are not afraid to flaunt it when ever possible. If the VRA was up for a vote today there would be a ton a Repukes and Teahodists voting against it.

5. voters are moochers

6. because a law's constitutionality depends on the political motives of the marginal congresscritter?

whether last few congresscritters changed their dissents due to fear of the bigot label, a recognition that their earlier dissents were morally wrong, or because the pushed the wrong button or whatever, who cares?

the thinking of the majority might be somewhat relevant, but the thinking of the superfluous extra tag-along votes? how silly.

"this law is unconstitutional because a few senators felt poltical pressure from their peers and constituents to vote for it!"

14. Gosh, I thought that Republicans didn't want foreign law used in the US

I mean, they get to het up over the mere mention of sharia law. Yet here Tony the Slime brings in ancient Jewish law. Of course, Tony does get it sort of wrong - it was the Greater Sanhedrin that acted like a supreme court, especially in the 2nd temple period, legislating all aspects of Jewish life, both religious and political, according to the Bible and rabbinic tradition, and taking cases from lower courts or the lesser Sanhedrins that each city had. I wonder if Tony believes that the Bible and rabbinic traditions are living documents unlike the Constitution which he claims is not?